Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broken as Things Are


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. L Faraone  01:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Broken as Things Are

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article says that book is critically claimed, but I can't find any significant coverage. The reviews that I could find were from unreliable websites. The author is of dubious notability and has no article. Fails WP:BK. SL93 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The original status of this article was atrocious, but I've cleaned it up considerably and found some sources. Most of the links on the article are trades, true, but there's one newspaper review in there and then there's this newspaper article where the Google News search asserts has a review for the book as well. I can't verify it through the snippet that this link shows when I actually click on it, so if someone can verify this and then link it to the article, I'd be much obliged. The second newspaper article would definitely push it to a stronger keep for me if it does contain a review. In any case this just barely and I mean barely skims the notability guidelines of WP:NBOOK. If it was just the trades I'd have voted for a weak delete. I'll probably still try to see if there's merit in creating an article for the author and redirecting there if all else fails. If it does get deleted, I'm willing to userfy a copy to hold on to and work on with the intent of potentially creating an article for the author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   04:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  17:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.